Redes Andinas De Comunicaciones S.R.L. v. Republic of Peru

At a glance

Parties

Redes Andinas de Comunicaciones S.R.L. (Peru) v. the Republic of Peru, Peru's Ministry of Transportation and Communications, and Programa Nacional de Telecomunicaciones (PRONATEL)

Case no.

Civil Action No. 22-3631 (RC), U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

Forum and rules

Petition to confirm and enforce foreign arbitral awards under the Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. §§ 201–208) and the New York Convention; jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act

Treaty

Arbitration clauses (art. 22) of two December 2015 contracts with FITEL; New York Convention for enforcement

Court

United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Judge Rudolph Contreras

Underlying award(s)

Awards 24471/JPA and 24472/JPA, rendered in Lima, Peru on 2 August 2022

Sector

Telecommunications; broadband infrastructure construction

Outcome

PRONATEL's motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter and personal jurisdiction, non-compliance with Article IV of the New York Convention, and defective service was denied (22 July 2025). Redes was granted leave to file a sur-reply.

The dispute

Redes, a Peruvian construction company, entered into two agreements with Peru's Telecommunications Investment Fund (FITEL) in December 2015 to install broadband infrastructure across Peru. In 2018 FITEL was merged into the Ministry of Transportation and Communications and renamed PRONATEL. After construction delays, PRONATEL terminated the contracts in April 2019, and Redes began two arbitrations under the contracts' arbitration clauses. A tribunal in Lima issued awards in Redes's favour on 2 August 2022, and Redes petitioned the D.C. federal court to confirm and enforce them. The court had already entered default judgment against Peru and the Ministry and had set aside the default against PRONATEL. PRONATEL then moved to dismiss, arguing that the court lacked subject-matter and personal jurisdiction, that Redes had not supplied the arbitration agreements as Article IV of the New York Convention requires, and that it had not been properly served under Peruvian law.

Key holdings

1. Subject-matter jurisdiction exists under the FSIA arbitration exception (28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(6)(B)). Redes proved an arbitration agreement by producing the contracts (art. 22) and the awards, which reproduce the arbitration clauses. PRONATEL did not dispute the existence of the awards or that the New York Convention applies. pp. 7–9
2. PRONATEL is not a separate "person" entitled to Fifth Amendment due process protection, so it cannot raise a minimum-contacts defence. Under the Bancec factors, PRONATEL is formally a national program within the Ministry and has no separate legal personality. It implements national broadband policy, is directed and financed through the Ministry, and its staff are civil servants. Peru had also conceded in other proceedings that PRONATEL has no autonomous legal personality. The court found the case less clear-cut than TMR Energy but still concluded that the presumption of separateness was overcome. pp. 13–21
3. The formal requirements of Article IV of the New York Convention are not jurisdictional. Where the existence of the arbitration agreements is undisputed, failing to attach them to the petition is a technicality and is no ground for dismissal. Al-Qarqani v. Chevron is distinguished, because in that case no arbitration agreement existed. pp. 21–24
4. Service under the Inter-American Convention on Letters Rogatory was valid under Peruvian law. PRONATEL was served at its legal defence office on 5 October 2023. Under Peruvian law, service at a different address, or in a proceeding opened to serve another respondent, is cured where actual notice was received. The letter rogatory covered all three respondents. The court also accepted Peru's Ministry of Foreign Affairs certificate that all respondents were served as of 1 December 2023. pp. 24–28
5. Redes's mistaken reference to § 1608(a) instead of § 1608(b) in its request for entry of default is immaterial: the relevant statutory language of the two provisions is identical. pp. 27–28
6. Leave to file a sur-reply was granted, because PRONATEL's reply raised new facts about its independence from Peru. p. 4 n. 2

Procedural history

1. December 2015Redes and FITEL conclude two broadband infrastructure agreements containing arbitration clauses.
2. April 2019PRONATEL (formerly FITEL) terminates the contracts. Redes then begins two arbitrations.
3. 2 August 2022The arbitral tribunal in Lima renders Awards 24471/JPA and 24472/JPA in Redes's favour.
4. 8 December 2022The court grants Redes's motion for issuance of letters rogatory to serve the respondents.
5. 1 February 2023The Clerk of Court enters default against all three respondents.
6. 5 October 2023PRONATEL is served at its legal defence office in Peru.
7. 5 March 2024PRONATEL appears, opposes the motion for default judgment (filed 20 February 2024) and moves to set aside the default.
8. 24 September 2024Redes Andinas I: default judgment granted against Peru and the Ministry. The default against PRONATEL is set aside.
9. 22 July 2025Memorandum Opinion denying PRONATEL's motion to dismiss and granting leave to file a sur-reply.

Tribunal, counsel and experts

Decided by

• Rudolph Contreras Judge, United States District Court for the District of Columbia

Experts

Cristina Ferraro Delgado (claimant)

Run a conflict check on these names →

Keywords

• New York Convention
• FSIA arbitration exception
• recognition and enforcement
• sovereign immunity
• personal jurisdiction
• Fifth Amendment due process
• Bancec factors
• presumption of separateness
• state instrumentality
• PRONATEL
• FITEL
• Article IV formalities
• Inter-American Convention on Letters Rogatory
• service of process
• Peru
• broadband
• telecommunications
• TMR Energy

Summary generated with AI from the published documents — refer to the award for the authoritative text.